If I'm not mistaken, I imagine fa-jing as internal and gamaku as external. I don't think they contradict each other. I've never been taught in terms of fa-jing...the equivalent? I'm familiar with is 'kime' or is fa-jing more like 'Hakkei'?

I just want to comment on your quote below, but will probably dfrift into a couple of other points you made.

Quote:

I think my question has been covered. In comparrison, goju has mostly a vertical center of gravity...in order to do this, goju stances 'tuck in the buttocks' - which in effect, aligns the top and bottom body angles. (straight up and down)

Matsubayashi has a slight tilt forward (hara projection is at a front angle, almost as an invisible 3rd leg)...this no doubt gives a better weight transfer into the target, but maybe at the expense of something else...maybe not. there isn't much linear retreating philosophy in Karate (except with off-balancing), so why not take advantage of that fact. forward tilt seems like a sound principal, the reason it doesn't look like it makes sense is because I might be looking at it from the logic of sparring principals. When sport sparring, you want to be able to spring in any direction. In self-defense, you need forward and forward angles. Goju is about holding your ground and attacking in place or to the side - let the attacker come into your space.

Let's start with the basic "lean" of the style. I don't accept Medulant's theory that it doesn't exist in advanced practitioners. Look at photo's and video's of the senior representatives of the style. They lean. That's OK, let's just not pretend it's not there.

I don't accept that there is a difference between the SD and sparring philosophy's. They both have the same requirement, in that you put your body in a position from which it can most effectively move in any desired direction. To say we don't go back, is fundamentally flawed. As such, I believe leaning forward, while it MAY have an advantage in some way (Don't know what yet) it does put you in a poor position to move. In addition it restricts your kicking ability in the direction that you are striking, requiring a repositioning to a more central body position before being able to kick effectively.

Whether you use your back or side muscles, I don't know. I tend to think of them as a complimentary unit that work together. Kind of like a soccer team with forwards, a midfield and defence. They work as a unit to be effective. In the video I saw of you, I believe you had an over emphasis on the upper torso muscles at the expense of the lower muscles. This gave the impression of power generation from higher up than I believe is desirable. (Kind of like a soccer team with great forwars, but who suck at the back. Something Arsenal could never be accused of!)

Why the lean?

I'm a great believer that karate is an individual thing. A master has over the years developed his own way of doing things that work for him. Fine, I have no problem with that. It's when the students then try to delve into depth to explain why it's the way it is that you start to run into trouble. It may have been that the guy originally trained with people smaller than him and didn't need to go backwards as he felt comfortable overpowering them in a forward direction. Maybe he didn't worry about kicking because he sucked at it anyway. Who know's!

I suggest that rather than looking at it as style based element, look at basic mechanics and see what works for you.

Thank-you John... I don't always like to hear it, but honesty thru logic is something to appreciate. ... even when the logic is flawed.

Quote:Well, that'll teach you to show people video's, won't it!

yes it will, thats why I'll probably use it again...more fun than typing and reading text.

I'll take the tone of assuming you are sometimes correct.

Quote:Let's start with the basic "lean" of the style. I don't accept Medulant's theory that it doesn't exist in advanced practitioners. Look at photo's and video's of the senior representatives of the style. They lean. That's OK, let's just not pretend it's not there.

I'm only looking at what I'm taught, by who they were taught by, and by who 'developed' the style...whether that style (as it relates to this thread) is a learning method or fighting method I have yet to determine. In the meantime, I'm just accepting (right or wrong, it's the only way to learn).

BTW - I just dusted of my copy of the only book in existence which shows high-speed camera frames of Ueshiro performing Fukyugata-san full-speed. looking closer with this topic in mind, he's not leaning at all- the line from head to heal is more of a forward arc. Interesting. He looks very well 'sunk'. now I look at Nagamine's book, he didn't have this filmed at high-speed - he posed for each frame...even so, it's not a forward lean, it's a less pronounced arc.It could very well be that I'm being taught Matsubayashi power generation incorrectly. Thats for me to decide. but the evidence 'leans' me to medulant's description. (no pun intended).

Quote:I don't accept that there is a difference between the SD and sparring philosophy's.

Thats just rediculous. objective A: end conflict as soon as possible. vs. objective B: score the most points in x time with restriction to a subset of techniques. If both sparring fighters attack as they would for SD, it would be broken up as a clash since judges can't see the points being scored.

Quote:Whether you use your back or side muscles, I don't know. I tend to think of them as a complimentary unit that work together.

no doubt, but which ones drive the others is the question.

Quote: In the video I saw of you, I believe you had an over emphasis on the upper torso muscles at the expense of the lower muscles. This gave the impression of power generation from higher up than I believe is desirable.

thats fair...I'm taking a look at it and will correct where I can/should.

I agree that it's not wise to follow someone else's fighting style to the letter. but there has to initially be a process of 'mimicing' first, before incorporating the style into your body. This is my first year of Nagamine's style as interpreted by Ueshiro through his student Scaglione who in turn taught the two sensei that I have access (who also have kyu-level training with Mr. Brooks of this site). Lots of changing hands...sure it's possible things get lost in translation. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt while trying to keep an open mind...if that makes sense.

just wanted to update my view on this. some additional research and asking around, I'm now convinced that I was wrong about the Matsubayashi 'lean', and even wrong to refer to it as a lean.

The kata Fukyugata-San in my video is a good example of someone doing it wrong.

It's not even referred to as a 'lean' but more of a sinking slightly forward just as most of you were saying. I'll work on those two things: forward sinking and whole body power generation. ...keeping in mind what the hips are doing.

...thanks everyone for your input as I try to figure out how this system works. -Ed

Ed,I would enjoy meeting you someday. Why don't you come to the dojo sometime and work out with us. I'm sure Brooks-sensei wouldn't mind if you asked. In fact, why not just join our dojo I appreciate your deep thinking on these issues and I think our sensei would beable to shed so much light on these and other issues.

I am not a product of Okinawan karate, but what if I told you I was always taught to lean/tilt the torso about 10 degrees forward while sinking into most forward facing fighting stances as well as baski kihon practice from Sanchin-dachi?

well...if you told me that, then I'd get confused...good thing you weren't actually saying it. lol kidding. a slight lean forward might appear when it makes sense, but what I'm doing is, as John suggested, using too much upper body - and I don't think it's my creeky knees...my vertical balance is top heavy. I think the lean is causing this...so the (Goju and ShitouRyu) way I was taught about sinking into stance seems valid. It's funny, when I incorporate a goju horse-stance (which is pretty much the same) and Tani-ha type zenkutsu into this kata, people watching it say - yes! now THAT looks more like Matsubayashi. lol

The Shizentai dachi was new for me when I started MB. completely different from sanchin-dachi. I spent some time working on it, but I think a slight arc when stepping helps koshi/gamaku. If I'm not mistaken, a slight arc when 'shuri-stepping' is how they did it in the old days of Shorin Ryu. It does feel more versitile (and more natural for a goju-stepper) with that slight modification. hardly noticable when watching (although some of you caught it) but it feels much more comfortable for me.

so Brad, there are instances maybe a forward lean makes sense....but so far, the most that appears in Okinawan Karate is just my untrained eye's appearence of a lean - it's a forward arcing sink. I looked at some pro boxing photos...with exception of the heel lifting up, the arc looks similar on impact...I was stunned because my hollywood impression of a 'boxing punch' was the Rocky movies - plus I was always being told on the Army boxing team: 'lean into the punch, lean into the punch, get your weight in there, ya gaddam karottyka' lol...what they meant to say was sink into the punch and let your weight be pushed forward with your rear ball of foot. also I notice in boxing, the hip and shoulders turn with different timing than Karate. boxing seems to have the hip follow the hand (follow-thru). karate has the hip leading the hand (gamaku). whats your take on that?

Jeremy: thanks, would be interesting. lets set something up offline (PM). ever find out about the kata order?

Quote: also I notice in boxing, the hip and shoulders turn with different timing than Karate. boxing seems to have the hip follow the hand (follow-thru). karate has the hip leading the hand (gamaku). whats your take on that?

I am not sure if that is quite true. I have noted occasionally what you have listed per timing of the hip rotation. However, I think what some folk see in some boxing (as in sport karate) is the lack of hip rotation so that full committal to the strike is not present. This means you have speed for multiple strikes since the body is not in each punch, but at the expense of putting the body completely behind each strike for hard impact. Remember that aspect of sport that requires points over power delivery for attempting to down the opponent. Different paradigm for applying techniques.

However, look at a good power shot...no matter the style or sporting context... it follows, like dominoes... or that wave-style break dancing prevalent in the 80's. Starts with the feet or connection to the ground, up throught the hips into the torso, shoulder, and then in the arm and fist. It's the fluid translation of this power that matters, not the style.